Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Wins are as irrelevant to the value of a pitcher as RBIS are to the value of a hitter.

I think you still need to get some wins and I think you still need to drive in some runs. They are each an important statistic in a large group of statistics. You cannot just ignore them because some gearheads come up with abstract statistics.

Management must think something of them. Contracts routinely have bonuses for the traditional stats. Never heard of a guy getting a bonus for his XFIP ot his WAR.

I think you still need to get some wins and I think you still need to drive in some runs. They are each an important statistic in a large group of statistics. You cannot just ignore them because some gearheads come up with abstract statistics.

Management must think something of them. Contracts routinely have bonuses for the traditional stats. Never heard of a guy getting a bonus for his XFIP ot his WAR.

The only stats in baseball contracts are Games, IPs, and ABs or PAs, and never Wins, ERA, Ks, AVG, HRs, etc. Not sure if it is part of the basic agreement with the MLBPA or something everyone managed to agree upon.

I like Wins and RBIs because, historically, they were how we talked about and evaluated pitchers, but they really aren't all that relevant as standalone stats. The only value in Wins for me is that a pitcher consistently goes 5+ innings to get a W, and probably pitched and won w/o his best stuff. RBIs are relevant to me as in the % of RISP that score.

Last edited by Dugmet; 12-05-2012 at 07:17 PM.

“The Wilpons and Mr. Saul Katz — the people who say they don’t care about the team are sorely misguided,” Ojeda told the newspaper. “These are the biggest Mets fans you will meet."

I think you still need to get some wins and I think you still need to drive in some runs. They are each an important statistic in a large group of statistics. You cannot just ignore them because some gearheads come up with abstract statistics.

Management must think something of them. Contracts routinely have bonuses for the traditional stats. Never heard of a guy getting a bonus for his XFIP ot his WAR.

Yes but wins are overvalued tremendously.

Good pitchers can be victims of a bad bullpen (we have seen that before), an error or errors, or little run support.

Let's say a pitcher A pitches to 2.5 ERA (3 FIP and the better peripherals) and wins 11 games, and you have pitcher B who wins 19 games and pitches to a 4.4 ERA (5 FIP and the obvious worse peripherals)?

Who is the better pitcher?

If i saw those two, it's without question pitcher A.

If i was looking to acquire a pitcher, pitcher A gives me the better chance to win then pitcher B does even though pitcher B won more games.

Look at Phil Hughes i believe in 2010 when he won 18 games, he wasn't nearly as good as his record indicated and was the benefactor of having the best run support in the majors (or one of the best)

Wins are as irrelevant to the value of a pitcher as RBIS are to the value of a hitter.

well, while i understand your point and agree that wins are irrelevant to the value of a pitcher, i disagree that RBI's are equally as irrelevant to the value of a hitter. Sure, your teammates have to be on base for you to get RBI's, but it does show clutchness of a particular player. If a hitter has a knack throughout his career for coming through with RISP and lets say usually has a somewhat low avg but very good RBI numbers every yr, I'd definitely say that adds value to him.

well, while i understand your point and agree that wins are irrelevant to the value of a pitcher, i disagree that RBI's are equally as irrelevant to the value of a hitter. Sure, your teammates have to be on base for you to get RBI's, but it does show clutchness of a particular player. If a hitter has a knack throughout his career for coming through with RISP and lets say usually has a somewhat low avg but very good RBI numbers every yr, I'd definitely say that adds value to him.

The raw stat, RBI, does not.

Q: If player A has 100 RBI and Player B has 50 RBI, which player is more clutch?
A: I have no idea.

However, if Player A tallied 100 RBI with 500 runners in scoring position and Player B tallied 50 with 100 RISP, we know that Player B is more clutch because he drove home 50% while Player A drove home 20%.

“The Wilpons and Mr. Saul Katz — the people who say they don’t care about the team are sorely misguided,” Ojeda told the newspaper. “These are the biggest Mets fans you will meet."

Does anyone think we could make a trade involving Dickey for Dee Gordon? And would anyone in here do that trade?

I'm confident we could, but I doubt we would.

Dee Gordon at this point seems to have about as much value as Fernando Martinez. After part of the last 2 seasons in MLB, I imagine he'll be out of options after this season. And it's doubtful he could even hit right now at the AA level.

Again, the Mets don’t think Dickey is worth Ryan Dempster/Dan Haren money, yet they think another team should be willing to fork over two of their best young talents for him, when they could, you know, just sign Ryan Dempster instead.

At this point, Dickey should really just tell the Mets to keep their money and that he’s going to test the open market. He’d be doing them a big favor by signing a two-year, $26 million extension. If he were a free agent right now, he’d have his pick of three-year, $45 million-$48 million offers, and it hardly be a shock if some team went to $20 million per year. He has a realistic shot of outperforming Zack Greinke over the next three years.